Housing Support for Homeless Households - Analysis of Consultation Findings- Report

Executive Summary

This report presents the findings of a consultation carried out by the Scottish Government on "Housing Support for Homeless Households" between January and April 2012.

The Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 establishes a new Statutory Duty which requires local authorities to carry out an assessment of the housing support needs of homeless applicants who are currently assessed as being unintentionally homeless, or threatened with homelessness, and in priority need and therefore entitled to settled accommodation, and where there is reason to believe that the applicant may be in need of prescribed housing support services. The Duty (at Section 32B of the Housing [Scotland] Act 1987) also requires local authorities to make sure that housing support services are provided to those assessed as being in need of them.

Scottish Ministers are also able, under the new Duty to make regulations about housing support assessment and provision. The Scottish Government undertook a consultation on whether, when the new Duty is commenced, such regulations should be established and what any such regulations should cover, as the first stage in developing policy in this area.

A total of 66 written responses were received. The most common category of respondent was "local authorities or those representing local authorities" (45%). The other main categories of respondents were "voluntary sector" (29%), and "housing associations or associated" (14%). The remaining respondents were drawn from a wide variety of sectors. One response was received from an individual. The main findings are summarised below.

Overall views of regulations and the content and scope of assessment

At Question 1, respondents were asked to choose between Option 1 (commence the Duty on local authorities and establish regulations on the assessment and provision of housing support) and Option 2 (commence the Duty on local authorities and do not establish regulations). It was found that overall views were evenly split, with 29 (48%) of those who addressed the question supporting each of Option 1 and Option 2. There were some variations in views of the preferred option by type of respondent. Around two thirds of local authorities who addressed this question supported Option 2, while virtually all of the housing associations supported Option 1. All of those who addressed Question 1 made additional comments, most of which focused on the reasons for the choice made.

In relation to reasons for the choice of Option 1, or perceived benefits, the most common theme was consistency in housing support assessment and provision. Other themes included: a perceived positive impact on aspects of provision or outcomes; addressing gaps/problems; providing clarity/definition of housing support; improving accountability; resource issues; and a small number of other reasons or benefits. Several respondents qualified their choice of Option 1 or made additional comments.

In relation to reasons for the choice of Option 2, or perceived benefits, the two themes identified most frequently were: the view that guidance or a broad framework would suffice or would be preferable to regulations; and the view that current legislation and processes made regulations unnecessary. Other issues raised as reasons for a preference for Option 2 included: a perceived need for flexibility, and variation in local circumstances/individual needs; a perceived impact on the nature of services/decision making; the implications for costs/use of resources; and the implications for the timescale for implementation.

Question 2 was in several parts and focused on: whether Scottish Ministers should prescribe the types of inquiries local authorities must carry out in determining the housing support required; and whether Scottish Ministers should specify matters to which local authorities must have regard in carrying out the assessment.

It was found that around half (52%) of those who addressed Question 2(a) were against prescribing the types of inquiries local authorities must carry out in determining the housing support required, while 41% were in favour of such prescription and 7% did not express a clear preference. There were variations between sectors in their views, with 70% of local authority respondents who addressed the question expressing disagreement with prescribing the types of inquiries, while a similar proportion of housing association respondents expressed agreement. Respondents from other sectors were mixed in their views. All of those who addressed this question made additional comments.

In terms of reasons in favour of prescribing the types of inquiries that should be carried out, the main theme was the promotion of consistency, while other themes included: a perceived positive impact on the assessment process, means of working or outcomes; and addressing issues with the current arrangements. In terms of the reasons against the types of inquiries being prescribed, the most common focused on: the view that guidance would suffice or be preferable to regulations; and the view that existing practice was appropriate. Other issues raised included: the importance of flexibility; variation in needs; the potential implications of action for decision making processes or outcomes; and the resource implications.

Where comments were made at Question 2(b) on what inquiries should be carried out, the most common themes related to aspects of the assessment process generally and the nature of the inquiries overall. Some specific issues for inquiry were also suggested.

A majority of those who addressed Question 2(d) were against specifying matters to which local authorities must have regard in carrying out the assessment, with 50% of those who addressed the question expressing disagreement, while 44% expressed agreement and 6% did not express a clear preference. While a majority of housing associations and most respondents from the voluntary sector were found to support this, more than 72% of local authorities did not. Of those who addressed this question, 49 (94%) made additional comments.

Where respondents provided reasons for support, or perceived benefits of the specification of such matters, the most common themes were the promotion of consistency and a perceived positive impact on aspects of the assessment process or means of working. Where respondents provided reasons against the specification of such matters, the commonest theme was the view that guidance would suffice or be preferable to regulation. The other main issues raised against specification were: the importance of flexibility; and the view that existing practice was appropriate. A few comments were also made about variation in needs or the potential negative impact of regulation on outcomes.

Where comments were made at Question 2(d) about what matters should be prescribed, these were very similar to the issues identified at question 2(b), with the most common themes relating to the need to prescribe aspects of the assessment process generally and the nature of the inquiries overall. Again, some specific issues were also identified which respondents believed that local authorities should have regard to.

In relation to Question 3, a majority of those who addressed this (66%) were against the prescription of those housing support services for which an applicant should be assessed, while 30% expressed agreement and 4% did not express a clear preference. Again, there was evidence of a significant difference of view across sectors, with two thirds of housing associations supporting this, but more than 83% of local authorities opposed to this. Among voluntary organisations who expressed a view, there was also a clear majority against these matters being prescribed. Of those who addressed this question, all bar one (98%) made additional comments.

Where specific reasons were given to support the view that Scottish Ministers should prescribe the housing support services for which an applicant is to be assessed, respondents identified reasons relating to: consistency; a perceived positive impact on aspects of the process, provision or outcomes; addressing issues in the current situation; and providing clarity/definition of services. Where specific reasons were given to support the view that Scottish Ministers should not prescribe the housing support services for which an applicant is to be assessed, the most common themes were: the view that guidance (and not prescription) was the preferred approach; issues relating to the implications for the decision making process; and variation in needs and provision (with a related need for flexibility). Other issues raised were: the general lack of need for prescription; and issues relating to costs/use of resources.

Where comments were made about which support services should be covered, a number of respondents identified issues relating to the nature and general approach of support services overall. Others suggested specific types of services (e.g. support relating to: financial issues; health, mental health and well being; relationships, personal and social issues; tenancy/accommodation issues; substance misuse issues; living skills; education, training and employment; safety; and offending/legal issues).

The content and scope of provision of support services

Question 4 asked respondents whether Scottish Ministers should specify the period for which housing support services should be provided, and a majority of those who addressed the question (82%) were against this, while 14% expressed agreement and 4% did not express a clear preference. There was a majority against the specification of these matters in all sectors. All of those who addressed this question provided additional comments.

In the small number of cases where specific reasons were given to support the view that Scottish Ministers should specify the period for which housing support services should be provided, these comments focused on: the needs of the client; outcomes; and the provision of clarity. Most of the respondents who offered additional comments, however, provided reasons for their view that the period should not be specified. The two most common themes were: the nature and basis of provision; and the variation among service users and their needs. Other themes identified by smaller numbers included: a preference for guidance; the perceived impact on service provision or outcomes; cost/resource issues; and general views that it would be difficult to specify the period of provision.

Only a few respondents made any comments on the prescribed period of provision. Of these, a few specified a period or a point at which input should be made, while a few expressed a view of the way in which such a decision should be made.

Question 5 asked whether Scottish Ministers should specify matters to which a local authority is to have regard to when ensuring provision of housing support services, and a majority (63%) disagreed with this, while under a third (29%) expressed agreement, and 8% did not express a clear preference. Among all sectors, there was a majority against this proposition. Most (94%) provided additional comments.

Where reasons were given to support the view that Scottish Ministers should specify matters to which a local authority is to have regard to when ensuring provision of housing support services, the most common issue identified (although still by only a few respondents) was the promotion of consistency. Other reasons included comments relating to: ensuring that clients' needs are met; providing definition of services; and the implications for cost/resources. Where reasons were given to support the view that Scottish Ministers should not specify these matters, the most common themes were: the implications for the nature of services and decision making processes; and a preference for guidance rather than prescription. Other reasons included: the view that current legislation and practice are sufficient; the need for flexibility; and issues relating to costs/resources.

In terms of views of matters to be specified, the most common theme related to overarching issues in the provision of services and the nature of the process. Additionally, small numbers of respondents in each case identified some specific types of support needs to which local authorities should have regard.

Question 6 asked whether Scottish Ministers should make different provision for different purposes and different areas. Two thirds (67%) of those who addressed this question did not support the view that Ministers should make different provision for different purposes and different areas, while 20% supported this, and 14% did not express a clear preference. All bar two of those respondents who addressed the question provided additional comments (96%).

Where reasons were given to support the view that Scottish Ministers should make different provision for different purposes and different areas, these related to the perceived existence of: different individual and local needs/circumstances; different geography/demography; and different provision in different areas. In relation to the view that Scottish Ministers should not make different provision for different purposes and different areas, themes included: the impact on the nature of processes or provision; the perceived need for consistent access to support; a preference for guidance; and a perceived need for flexibility.

Comments on views of what these provisions, purposes and/or areas should be were made by only a few respondents. Suggestions focused on the means of decision making and the identification of elements of provision considered important/ essential.

Other issues, business impact and equality impact

Respondents were asked at Question 7 to raise any other matters relating to the provision of housing support services by local authorities they believed Scottish Ministers should consider. Almost all of the respondents provided comments, and a large amount of additional qualitative information was provided in these comments relating to matters which respondents believed Scottish Ministers should consider.

The most common themes relating to Question 7 about which comments were made were: aspects of the process of assessment and provision; and aspects of the nature of service provision. A number of respondents also made comments on housing support overall. A further common theme was the identification of particular issues for clarification in relation to implementation of the Duty, and another was the provision of guidance. Comments were also made about issues for specific groups of service users. Other themes included: comments on resources, staffing issues and other aspects of implementation. As well as highlighting these issues for consideration, a number of respondents made comments on the consultation itself.

Question 8 asked respondents to provide any comments on the Business Regulatory Impact of their proposals and the partial BRIA, and more than three quarters of respondents made comments. The themes which emerged most frequently in relation to respondents' comments about the business impact were: the identification of additional costs; the impact upon service provision; and costing issues. Further themes were: the provision of resources; and the identification of cost savings or benefits. A small number of other issues were raised (e.g. examples of local practice; the view that the business impact would be neutral; and issues in the wider context).

Question 9 asked respondents to provide any comments on the equalities impact of their proposals and the draft Equalities Impact Assessment (EQIA), and over a third of respondents provided comments. A number of themes emerged on which several respondents made comments and these included: specific comments on the draft EQIA; perceived benefits of the Duty or proposals for equality; perceived risks to equality; and specific equalities issues to consider. A few respondents expressed the view that they could identify no impact on equality; and a few highlighted the importance of equality or gave examples of practice.